law
patreon
A Law for Christmas, and a Happy New Year!
🕑 Added 2025-01-01 02:45:31 +0000 UTCOA1106 and T3BE53
The Law'd Awful Movies this month was so much fun, I wanted to give everyone the first ~30 minutes of it. After that, it's the usual Thomas Takes the Bar Exam answer to Q52 and the new Q53. If you are one of the lucky patrons who has already heard LAM1006, feel free to skip to 31:04.
Here's our new question:
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Comments
jdub047
IANAL, as will soon be evidenced. I think the testimony could be admitted as a character witness. But I don't think it can be admitted to prove Jenny's assertion that the light was green for her. I chose B, which sounds like the legalese to explain A. Basically, the cafe owner didn't see the light on that date, so her seeing Jenny cross many times before is irrelevant to proving the light on that date. A is my second chance answer.
I am now 'Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything' years old
I want it to be a "yes" answer; the testimony feels relevant. I think D is correct but not specific enough, so it's not the *best* answer. So I agree with Thomas that it's C.
Quick update, Ovechkin is 20 away from the record!
Gotta agree with Thomas here, mostly. I thought about B, but I think not because the store owner isn't even speaking about "specific instances of conduct". He's testifying as to a broad character trait. Gotta go with C. I don't think it means with any certainty that she DIDN'T cross against the light, but it IS relevant. Related: You're correct...23 away now for Ovi including that absolute LASER beam against the Wild. Anyway, keep up the great work. Love you all! Thomas, Matt, Heather, Lydia, and everyone else involved. Cheers!
nocountry4oldben
The right answer is C. This is a tricky one, and I always found the distinction between habit and character fuzzy and unsatisfying. B is an accurate statement of the general rule against character evidence. You can't introduce evidence of specific instances of conduct to show a person's character in order to prove that on a specific occasion the person acted in accordance with that character (e.g., Alice made a bunch of bad investments, so she must be reckless, so she might have acted recklessly on that day). FRE 404. But you are allowed to show evidence of habit (e.g., Berto texts his mother every morning on the way to work, Camila brushes her teeth in the morning every day, before anything else). FRE 406. Here, Jenny has been crossing the same street for five years and always waits for the light, so this is habit evidence, not evidence of character. And since there's no other basis to exclude it, it comes in because it's relevant, which is what C is saying. (It's not D because the owner is testifying to his observations of her conduct, not her general reputation)
The Great State of Denial
The answer is C or D. Rules of evidence allow opinions about a person's character or reputation. I think the difference is if the cafe owner is testifying about Jenny's reputation or about specific previous acts. The cafe owner is not saying Jenny has a reputation for acting safely, but that Jenny has never walked against the red light in the 5 years the cafe owner has seen. So, I'm going with C. The testimony is admitted because it is relevant to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this location. It doesn't prove that Jenny crossed with green, but it's relevant to the claim.
Kat -- A liberal weed in conservative country
I think it is A because admitting the evidence implies that a reputation for wrecklessness means you shouldn't have the same opportunity for compensation if you cross the street safely and are struck down. It cannot be B because the café owner didn't testify about specific instances.
Bernese Mountain Dog
I think the answer is D. Normally character evidence is not admissible to show conformity on a particular occasion, but there is an exception for habitual evidence. It sounds like he is testifying to a specific habit that is never broken, so it should be admitted as evidence that that is her normal practice.
Jason Coughenour
I'm going with A. The owners testimony is being offered specifically to support Jenny's assertion that she crossed with the green, not in regards to her credibility. It's a shame that the owner watched her cross the street for 5 years, but managed to miss the day where it would have really mattered.
The world's most reluctant ray of sunshine
Haven't listened yet so this is just off the cuff. I feel like it's D - I know reputational testimony can come in, but I feel like the statement couldn't be admitted to bolster the specific claim of crossing on green in this specific circumstance. I think admitting the testimony to establish Jenny as a generally safe person, and therefore attempt to increase the weight of her own testimony regarding the specific facts of the case, should be allowed.
